Skip to main content
The 5 Best Things About Reformed Theology and/or Calvinism:

5. (And ironically, it can be one of the worst) Their understanding of predestination. While it may well lead to monstrous determinisms, according to some, had I been a member of the Dutch Reformed Church at Dort, I know which side I'd choose. A brief note to Drs. Walls and Dongell at Asbury--and it is spoken with all the charity I can muster--your book stinks. Did you purposely avoid the relevant scriptures, or was it a mistake?

4. Biblical fidelity. Leaving aside the critiques which come from many quarters on this point, (and many others) there should be no doubt that the Reformed value the Bible and its teachings highly, and their reputation for knowledge and zeal for God's Word is well deserved.

3. John Calvin. Now, before you jump on me, and I get letters from Hillaire Belloc's grandson and the Servetus Admiration Society reminding me that Calvin was a heretic and a monster, let me point out that, while far from perfect, Calvin deserves a much fairer portrait than his harshest critics would give him. By my arguably limited read of things, he was a warm man who cared deeply for Christian people. Whether he is a heretic depends largely on one's read of the historical situation, and the definition of proper hermeneutics. (Though of course, not objectively, in the mind of God; He knows.) I do know that he was a much more careful theologian and teacher than I would be/am.

2. The unity of the Old and New Testament/biblical theology. The Reformed do not make a regular practice of disdaining the Old Testament (as they understand it). Quite the opposite. They rightly attend to the Scripture as a narrative, from which we may draw the truth of God at any point in the story. Yes, it is right to rejoice in and prioritize the New Testament, because it is the fullness of the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, none of us should forget that our New Testaments would make very little sense without the Hebrew Scriptures, and that our Reformed bretheren try hard to ascertain how to apply them rightly for us today.

1. Covenant Theology. The deceptively simple notion that God relates to his people always through a mediator who intercedes for them, never (primarily) as individuals. Now, of course, we relate to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all the others pointed, in some sense. The Reformed are not alone in this notion, but I know that it finds no more complete expression among Protestants than among the Reformed. (In my experience)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un